AMA Declares Obesity a Disease

NPR had the courtesy to provide the full text of the resolution (http://media.npr.org/documents/2013/jun/ama-resolution-obesity.pdf)

Page 2, Line 13 states - The suggestion that obesity is not a disease but rather a consequence of a chosen lifestyle exemplified by overeating and/or inactivity is equivalent to suggesting that lung cancer is not a disease because it was brought about by individual choice to smoke cigarettes

That, my friends, is a mad semantic burn.

NYT has analysis and reactions from critics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/business/ama-recognizes-obesity-as-a-disease.html?_r=1&

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Page 2, Line 13 states - The suggestion that obesity is not a disease but rather a consequence of a chosen lifestyle exemplified by overeating and/or inactivity is equivalent to suggesting that lung cancer is not a disease because it was brought about by individual choice to smoke cigarettes

maybe if being a smoker were the disease...

so, what is wrong with the names we already have for the diseases caused by obesity?

Originally posted by Oliver North
maybe if being a smoker were the disease...

I don't think they're saying that "overeating" is a disease only that "being really fat" is a disease.

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, what is wrong with the names we already have for the diseases caused by obesity?

This is an inherent problem with medicine but their goals seem more practical than scientific. They want to tackle obesity as a whole rather than many individual diseases. Getting the weight of the population down could be a better use of their money than treating each comorbid disease.

Forget the philosophical quibbles; what will this do in a practical sense? Will this provide semantic backing for insurers to pay for beneficial treatments or counseling, and doctors to treat obesity in their patients more thoroughly? Or will it provide an excuse for people who are fat, to label it a disease instead of a choice, and thus remain sedentary?

I think that's the crux of the pro/con argument I've heard about this.

Originally posted by Digi
Forget the philosophical quibbles; what will this do in a practical sense?

The hope is that this will draw attention to the issue and get both physicians and patients take obesity more seriously on a case by case basis.

does obesity really have an exposure problem, though?

Originally posted by Oliver North
does obesity really have an exposure problem, though?

The problem is that people say obesity is just a consequence of eating too much. Would we say that lung cancer is just a consequence of smoking? No. Lung cancer is a disease. The language goes to how we think about them and perhaps to how we act toward them. Lung cancer is really bad for you, obesity is also really bad for you. We have objective measures of both. It does make some sense to classify obesity as a disease even though there is no germ.

Basically they want doctor's to be willing to say "Your weight is causing this, we need to deal with it." and patients to understand how serious the health impact of their weight can be. That is probably a misperception on their part though, addicts are often know the impact of drug use as well or better than the general public. I'm sure the same is true of the obese on average.

Poor fat people, that "High Fructoes corny syrup virus", HFCSV is the problem and Doctors won't cure it!

-Mitch

Originally posted by Oliver North
does obesity really have an exposure problem, though?

Exposure, maybe not. Acknowledgement of its deleterious affects, perhaps. This may just cut through some red tape to help more people get help. At least that's how I'm interpreting Sym's (and others'😉 take on it.

On the flip side, I've already seen fitness and health people bad-mouthing it as something that abdicates the personal responsibility of obesity from the person.

I dunno. This doesn't affect me - I'm hardly cut but nowhere near obese - so it's mostly just interesting to me. I see the passive glorification of obese living habits on a daily basis in my town. It would be nice to see a collective shift in mentality.

Originally posted by Digi
Exposure, maybe not. Acknowledgement of its deleterious affects, perhaps. This may just cut through some red tape to help more people get help. At least that's how I'm interpreting Sym's (and others'😉 take on it.

On the flip side, I've already seen fitness and health people bad-mouthing it as something that abdicates the personal responsibility of obesity from the person.

I dunno. This doesn't affect me - I'm hardly cut but nowhere near obese - so it's mostly just interesting to me. I see the passive glorification of obese living habits on a daily basis in my town. It would be nice to see a collective shift in mentality.

I have strong opinions about that, but I'm not always sure I agree with them.

-Mitch

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The problem is that people say obesity is just a consequence of eating too much. Would we say that lung cancer is just a consequence of smoking? No. Lung cancer is a disease. The language goes to how we think about them and perhaps to how we act toward them. Lung cancer is really bad for you, obesity is also really bad for you. We have objective measures of both. It does make some sense to classify obesity as a disease even though there is no germ.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Is that really an accurate comparison though? Chronic proximity to fat people doesn't make someone fat.

It can if they are related or share the same diet. Like in Hunni Booboo

-Mitch

Stupid bureaucracy.

Why is the American Music Awards doing medical stuff.

Spoiler:
That's a joke.

Spoiler:
you're a joke

Fight me, Dadudemon. estahuh

Spoiler:
I would fight you but I would hurt you so bad that I fear for your life. AKA, I'm a scaredy cat.

Thread derailing in 3, 2....

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Is there an obesity parallel to secondhand smoke?

Does there need to be?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Are there industrial chemicals that cause obesity?

Triglycerides.
Disaccharides.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does there need to be?

Why would there not need to be?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Triglycerides.
Disaccharides.

I thought triglycerides were necessary and healthy for you (obviously, not in excess and some are better for you than others and in different ratios)? I think, on the first one, you meant Trans-fatty acids. Let me know if I'm mistaken.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why would there not need to be?

Second hand smoke is way to indirectly communicate lung cancer. I can't think of an equivalent for any other disease. Certainly we consider every other kind of cancer to be a disease but they have no second hand smoke equivalent. The quote he's responding to is merely meant to argue that obesity can be thought of as a disease, not that it has any broader similarity to lung cancer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought triglycerides were necessary and healthy for you (obviously, not in excess and some are better for you than others and in different ratios)? I think, on the first one, you meant Trans-fatty acids. Let me know if I'm mistaken.

Its a joke about how giving things scary names doesn't actually change them. Triglycerides are fats. Saccharides are sugars, the most popular sugar to add is sucrose which is a disaccharide.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Second hand smoke is way to indirectly communicate lung cancer. I can't think of an equivalent for any other disease. Certainly we consider every other kind of cancer to be a disease but they have no second hand smoke equivalent. The quote he's responding to is merely meant to argue that obesity can be thought of as a disease, not that it has any broader similarity to lung cancer.

Honestly, "second hand eating" could be an equivalent. Juvenile Diabetes could be the outcome. If parents eat poorly, most likely, their children will eat poorly.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/new-factor-in-teen-obesity-parents-80252.aspx

I know what you're think: NO WAY! 😆

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its a joke about how giving things scary names doesn't actually change them. Triglycerides are fats. Saccharides are sugars, the most popular sugar to add is sucrose which is a disaccharide.

I thought you were serious because you can live with little to no disaccharides and still be quite healthy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The problem is that people say obesity is just a consequence of eating too much.

That is exactly what it is, eating to much. That's not a disease thats a problem based on choices.